Hostility to minorities has destroyed the electoral hopes of US Republicans,
while Labour has a huge lead in constituencies with a high percentage of
British Asians

Any British politician contemplating a crackdown on immigrants should first study “Pete’s Law”. This infamous edict, officially known as Proposition 187, was introduced in 1994 by the then Republican governor of California, Pete Wilson, to debar illegal aliens from using health care, schools and other public services. Although the measure was dropped after a federal court deemed it unconstitutional, its effects live on.

California, once the fiefdom of Ronald Reagan, has been a Democrat stronghold since alienated Latino voters rose up against Proposition 187 and set the template for Republican decline across America. Two decades on, the fast-rising Hispanic vote is putting the White House beyond the reach of any Right-wing contender. And so this month, as the US struggles with immigration reform, Jeb Bush – the former governor of Florida – broke with party orthodoxy to assert that illegal immigrants had mainly come to America as an “act of love” so that they could support their families. While hardliners judged his comment a heresy, moderates remember that Mr Bush’s brother, George W Bush, won 44 per cent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. In 2012, the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, gained just 27 per cent.

David Cameron faces a similar problem. His party’s failure to engage with rapidly growing ethnic minorities meant that only 16 per cent voted Tory in 2010. And so, with the barriers to victory getting higher, Mr Cameron promised to limit net migration to “tens of thousands” by 2015. The PM might as well have pledged a ceiling on the ladybird population. For as long as Britain remains in the EU and retains an open border policy, the tally of those entering and leaving is beyond his control. As the British recovery produces more jobs, the numbers of migrants are rising.

His second gambit was a claim made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, that every 100 migrants meant 23 fewer jobs for British workers. A suppressed government report, which surfaced only recently, debunked that assertion, citing “relatively little evidence that migration has caused significant displacement of UK natives”.

The clear beneficiary of this policy chaos should be Ed Miliband, whose party leads the Tories by an average of 16 points in constituencies with a high percentage of British Asians. But while Mr Miliband can rely on the support of ethnic minority citizens, regardless of their class, his natural blue-collar voters are less accommodating. With immigration in voters’ top three issues, Labour MPs are assailed by lifelong supporters complaining that immigrants are filching the houses, jobs and benefits that should rightfully be theirs. Such resentments gain credibility from a Labour Party that has contrived to validate, not allay, ill-founded fears.

Mr Miliband has made some good and thoughtful speeches on immigration. Yvette Cooper, his shadow home secretary, gave an equally persuasive address last week, in which she called for “an honest debate that doesn’t promote hostility but doesn’t ignore concerns”. Yet Labour’s positive homilies invariably come laced with remorse over Tony Blair declaring Britain open house to eastern European workers and (tacitly) over the taint of Gordon Brown branding an elderly voter “bigoted”. This purging of the soul, far from reassuring voters, makes them more afraid.

It is unthinkable that a Labour MP would abandon the caveats of contrition and say instead: “Migrants, including the first wave of Eastern Europeans, have brought more benefits than we dare admit. Yes, the middle classes have fared the best, with their Polish builders, Nepalese nannies and safer jobs. But poor families also need their kids minded and their boilers fixed by well-qualified, healthy people who tend to pay more tax, use fewer public services and claim less in benefits than indigenous Britons.

“If by a miracle the Government hits its migration targets, taxes would go up, net wages would drop by more than 3 per cent, the NHS would collapse overnight, university funding would dry up and the Tories would not be hailing their first Asian Culture Secretary. As has been pointed out, Sajid Javid’s father – who arrived from Pakistan in 1961 with £1 in his pocket – would never have made it into Cameron’s Britain under the terms of the migration cap.”

The determination of both political parties to follow public opinion rather than lead it has prised open the gulf between perception and reality. In that terrain, sown with voters’ terrors, Ukip can hope to reap the whirlwind. While Mr Cameron’s dealings with ethnic minorities have been patchy (an inquiry into the Muslim Brotherhood may well backfire on him), he has recognised his problem.

His visit last year to the scene of the Amritsar massacre, which he called “shameful”, appeared to be aimed squarely at Britain’s 800,000-strong Sikh community, who turn out more reliably than many other minority groupings and who could sway the result in marginal seats in London and Leicester. Changing the tide of history will, however, require something more meaningful than Samantha Cameron wearing a sari for the Hindu festival of Diwali. As the Tory MP Paul Uppal has suggested, the PM must draw in ethnic minorities at grassroots and government level if he is to follow the example of Canadian Conservatives and convert an abject record into election victory.

For Mr Miliband, who has locked himself into a story in which Labour plays the contrite villain, a way forward will require more than “fairness”. Voters who think immigration is undesirable won’t be mollified by being told it’s fair. As for repentance, Labour would be better off regretting the lack of adequate schools, hospitals and housing to cushion the arrival of the incomers it sanctioned.

Ensuring decent wages and migrants’ rights, though important, will only take Mr Miliband so far. He, like Mr Cameron, should be looking at America’s example. The first lesson is enshrined in Pete’s Law. If America, hardly the land of the freeloader, revolted against threats to immigrants, then Britain is unlikely to welcome draconian solutions either.

Two decades later, the US is agonising over the partial amnesty for illegal incomers demanded by President Obama (no slouch at deporting unwanted entrants) to help fix America’s “broken immigration system”. Mr Miliband, and for that matter Mr Cameron, should also consider offering earned citizenship to Britain’s undocumented migrants – an amorphous sub-stratum of up to 800,000 people and their British-born children. Jon Cruddas, Labour’s policy reviewer, and some wiser Tories have advocated such an amnesty in the past, in conjunction with tougher entry requirements.

With the election approaching, incomers are mustering again in Calais, braving razor wire, armed police and dogs to try to reach a land where dreams rarely come true. Reports say that four such migrants were believed to have died in the attempt last week. In a country riven by the fear of others, it occurs to no political leader to wonder whether they embarked on their last journey “with love in their hearts”. In the great immigration debate, compassion and imagination have neither place nor voice to air them. When no politician dares say the unsayable, it is time to ask: where is our Jeb Bush?